# Health insurance surcharge



## AZlooker (Sep 8, 2009)

Hello All, today I was informed that I will be paying a $20 per paycheck health insurance surcharge because I smoke a couple of cigars a month. According to my HR department, I either smoke or I don't, it does not matter how much. In addition, I have to self-identify by signing a document saying I do or do not smoke. If I fail to be truthful and somehow they find out I am smoking, I am subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination for dishonesty. This surcharge is in addition to the doubling of my health insurance premiums for 2011.
In 2012 the surcharge will be extended to include covered family members over the age of 18. Each year we will have to re-do the self-identify process. Paying the surcharge will mean that money has to come from somewhere. With the increase in premiums I will be out an additional $1700 for 2011. 

Looks like its time to stop the corporate-pushed donations. 

If I did not have 26 years on the job with only 5 years to go, I would move on. But believe me, I have more than earned my pension. LOL! 

Anyone else run into something like this?


----------



## 1029henry (Jan 18, 2010)

Welcome to East Germany, 1962. Just deny, deny, deny.


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

We dont run into that sort of thing here yet as we have public funded healthcare but I'm sure it's coming. I'd be looking in the policy for their legal definition of "Smoking".


----------



## Broz (Oct 16, 2010)

Tobacco drug tests use the presence of nicotine metabolites (specifically cotinine) in blood and urine samples. Depending on tobacco usage, detection could be averted with a week of no tobacco use or a month for heavy users. Fortunately nicotine metabolites are water soluble and more readily leave the body than fat soluble drug metabolites like those found in cannabis (THC).

Say no and make sure to test negative. Sadly, this behavior mimics that of illegal drug users dodging the various drug tests to disqualify employment. Too bad such a test doesn't exist for alcohol abuse, which is quite deadly after smoking-related diseases.

And, the increase in penalties for tobacco use has nothing to do with socialized medicine. Insurance companies are doing it to bolster profits and punish tobacco users.


----------



## jbrown287 (Aug 18, 2010)

My insurance also went up to $20.00, for smoking. At my work they do a mouth swab at random to keep everyone legit. Penalty for failing......Fired. Not something I'm going to risk. I'll just have to suck it up and take it along with everything else the state is taking this year.


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

[rant]:sb Man this whole situation sucks that insurance companies can use that as a cop out. I've been drug tested before but as long as it's a legal substance, ie tobacco, they are not allowed to test for it and if you were fired for it's use you would have a good case for a very big dollar claim. The exception is alcohol which is determined you must have a 0.00 reading at work. I agree with that one in my field. Thank goodness I work for myself as I get to fire customers that dont like me smoking in the shop! LOL. Honestly, the premise they are using to take your money and avoid paying out is bordering on criminal in my mind. [/rant]


----------



## thebayratt (Jun 4, 2009)

AZlooker said:


> Hello All, today I was informed that I will be paying a $20 per paycheck health insurance surcharge because I smoke a couple of cigars a month. According to my HR department, I either smoke or I don't, it does not matter how much. In addition, I have to self-identify by signing a document saying I do or do not smoke. If I fail to be truthful and somehow they find out I am smoking, I am subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination for dishonesty. This surcharge is in addition to the doubling of my health insurance premiums for 2011.
> In 2012 the surcharge will be extended to include covered family members over the age of 18. Each year we will have to re-do the self-identify process. Paying the surcharge will mean that money has to come from somewhere. With the increase in premiums I will be out an additional $1700 for 2011.
> 
> Looks like its time to stop the corporate-pushed donations.
> ...


You must work were I do!!!!! Thats pretty much EXACTLY what they are doing to me too!! 
I argued the lady on the phone that cigars are no where near as bad as cigarettes, bc you don't inhale them.... they couldn't understand that point, so I hung up on them.....

*Where do you work at??*


----------



## Syner (Mar 7, 2010)

Broz said:


> Tobacco drug tests use the presence of nicotine metabolites (specifically cotinine) in blood and urine samples. Depending on tobacco usage, detection could be averted with a week of no tobacco use or a month for heavy users. Fortunately nicotine metabolites are water soluble and more readily leave the body than fat soluble drug metabolites like those found in cannabis (THC).
> 
> Say no and make sure to test negative. Sadly, this behavior mimics that of illegal drug users dodging the various drug tests to disqualify employment. Too bad such a test doesn't exist for alcohol abuse, which is quite deadly after smoking-related diseases.
> 
> And, the increase in penalties for tobacco use has nothing to do with socialized medicine. Insurance companies are doing it to bolster profits and punish tobacco users.


I thought cotinine had a half-life of about 16 hours? Shouldn't it be gone from your system in less than a couple days?



thebayratt said:


> You must work were I do!!!!! Thats pretty much EXACTLY what they are doing to me too!!
> 
> I argued the lady on the phone that cigars are no where near as bad as cigarettes, bc you don't inhale them.... they couldn't understand that point, so I hung up on them.....
> 
> Where do you work at??


Sorry to break it to you. But just because we don't inhale doesn't mean cigars aren't just as "bad" as cigarettes. Cigar and pipe tobacco produces a more alkaline smoke so it is absorbed in our mouths much better/easier than cigarette smoke (and because there is so much more nicotine and tar in a typical cigar, we're worse off smoking one cigar than one cigarette - keep in mind that most cigarette smokers don't stop at 1 or 2 smokes a day though).


----------



## ke4mcl (Jun 17, 2010)

nope, i dont smoke.


----------



## AZlooker (Sep 8, 2009)

ke4mcl said:


> nope, i dont smoke.


LOL!


----------



## Mhouser7 (Aug 13, 2010)

ke4mcl said:


> nope, i dont smoke.


I don't either!:beerchug:


----------



## Turtle (Aug 24, 2010)

Wait, you guys smoke? I thought we were just collecting these things. Man who would want to put this golden, oily, amazingly awesome smelling stick into their mouth and light it on fire...

I'll be in the bathroom if you need me. Why is the fan on and copious amount of smoke billowing out? Just testing for my firefighters certificate.


----------



## Tritones (Jun 23, 2010)

Wait a minute - these things _burn?_


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

My name is Warren & I'm a smoker of cigars. Since I smoke there is a high probability I will die someday & I fully expect these companies to ban that too in the near future.


----------



## Frinkiac7 (Dec 12, 2008)

I would just say no. Random mouth swabs at work? I'd go home and milk welfare for all it was worth rather than subject myself to that...effing pathetic. If Big Brother really wants to make themselves all powerful, then they can get the nanny total-control state they want and start paying me to sit on my ass, then. F--- 'em.

But cooling down for a second, I'd still say no. If they tested you and you popped hot, you could just plead false positive, lawyer up, maybe get lucky and off with a warning...anything. It's all part of a fear campaign that some fat nerdlinger actuary dreamt up to try and save money. The contemptible little weasels who devise these ideas are all going to be strung up on the outskirts of town sooner or later...no use knuckling under to them. 

The best part is that they are so hardcore on smoking, but the vast majority of people are just ungodly fat-asses, including most managers and health insurance industry workers. It's unreal...no lies will ever convince me that smoking is worse for your health than being a humongous whale. Yet 75% of Americans are now classified as overweight or obese...do something about that, health Nazis. Oh wait, you're big fat-asses like the rest of us. My Google News feed today is telling me that 30% of Americans will have Type II diabetes by 2050...thanks again poor diet and lack of exercise, that the health gestapo are doing nothing about. But a few puffs on a cigar and you're done, pal!

These people are sick, perverted, disgusting control freaks, and hypocrites to boot. We have an unbelievably massive health crisis facing this country, the costs of which will dwarf anything smoking ever did as more people drop dead from being complete lardos. Not a peep from the Nazis on that one. 

So yeah, if anyone ever tried to swab my damn cheek to see if I'd been smoking tobacco (probably while squeezing into their pleated khakis and chowing on a Big Mac, no less), I'd sure give them something to smoke.

Edit: I also don't smoke, anyway.


----------



## Tritones (Jun 23, 2010)

Statistically, you have a 100% chance of dying if you breathe. Don't tell the insurance companies - they'll demand we all stop breathing.


----------



## Broz (Oct 16, 2010)

Syner said:


> I thought cotinine had a half-life of about 16 hours? Shouldn't it be gone from your system in less than a couple days?


It depends on your individual metabolic rates and your exposure to tobacco. Tests are sensitive enough that you'll still want several half-lives to pass. As a rule of thumb, daily cigar smokers will need more time off to clear their systems than 1-2 a week or less cigar smokers.


----------



## tpharkman (Feb 20, 2010)

Broz said:


> It depends on your individual metabolic rates and your exposure to tobacco. Tests are sensitive enough that you'll still want several half-lives to pass. As a rule of thumb, daily cigar smokers will need more time off to clear their systems than 1-2 a week or less cigar smokers.


I am glad winter is just around the corner as I will be moving into the category of undetectable smoker:spy:.


----------



## 1029henry (Jan 18, 2010)

The novel "1984" I read in high school suddenly seems very frightening.
Double-plus ungood.


----------



## Batista30 (Sep 13, 2010)

Don't know if this is a possible way of getting around the test, but I am assuming that they're testing for nicotine because that's one of the only ways they can see if you're smoking. If that's the case, couldn't one blame it on a nicotine patch? Another words, just carry some patches around in an emergency. If I understand this, nicotine patches would not be responsible for an increase in health premiums, only cigars.


----------



## Broz (Oct 16, 2010)

Batista30 said:


> Don't know if this is a possible way of getting around the test, but I am assuming that they're testing for nicotine because that's one of the only ways they can see if you're smoking.


Yes, it's a quick noninvasive way of determining "tobacco use". Although the company doing random swabs of suspected smokers is pretty sadistic. I'm not sure how each company handles those using nicotine supplements, but if it's a tobacco product you're going to hit, be it cigarettes, cigars or the least harmful Swedish snus.


----------



## Batista30 (Sep 13, 2010)

Broz said:


> Yes, it's a quick noninvasive way of determining "tobacco use". Although the company doing random swabs of suspected smokers is pretty sadistic. I'm not sure how each company handles those using nicotine supplements, but if it's a tobacco product you're going to hit, be it cigarettes, cigars or the least harmful Swedish snus.


Tobacco use = Nicotine use but Nicotine use =/= tobacco use. My own personal knowledge is that measuring nicotine is the easiest way to determine tobacco use but that doesn't necessarily mean you're smoking. If one is using the patch, then essentially you're not getting the harmful long term effects of cigar smoking(cancers) which what health insurance companies are targeting. I don't have to worry about this, but I'm trying to give someone who has to deal the cost in health insurance premiums some legs to stand on. If you told them you are no longer a smoker but now use nicotine patches, you may have a way out of the increase.


----------



## Broz (Oct 16, 2010)

Batista30 said:


> Tobacco use = Nicotine use but Nicotine use =/= tobacco use. My own personal knowledge is that measuring nicotine is the easiest way to determine tobacco use but that doesn't necessarily mean you're smoking. If one is using the patch, then essentially you're not getting the harmful long term effects of cigar smoking(cancers) which what health insurance companies are targeting. I don't have to worry about this, but I'm trying to give someone who has to deal the cost in health insurance premiums some legs to stand on. If you told them you are no longer a smoker but now use nicotine patches, you may have a way out of the increase.


Well, you certainly don't need to tell me this. Anti-smoking lobbying has become overall anti-tobacco, regardless of the fact that nicotine is as harmful as caffeine. So, with the exception of the patch, if nicotine metabolites are found above the accepted minimum value the insurance company will interpret that has harming your body (smoking), even if you were using harm reduction products (snuff, snus, lozenges).


----------



## marked (Jul 29, 2010)

Frinkiac7 said:


> The best part is that they are so hardcore on smoking, but the vast majority of people are just ungodly fat-asses, including most managers and health insurance industry workers. It's unreal...no lies will ever convince me that smoking is worse for your health than being a humongous whale. Yet 75% of Americans are now classified as overweight or obese...do something about that, health Nazis. Oh wait, you're big fat-asses like the rest of us. My Google News feed today is telling me that 30% of Americans will have Type II diabetes by 2050...thanks again poor diet and lack of exercise, that the health gestapo are doing nothing about. But a few puffs on a cigar and you're done, pal!
> 
> These people are sick, perverted, disgusting control freaks, and hypocrites to boot. We have an unbelievably massive health crisis facing this country, the costs of which will dwarf anything smoking ever did as more people drop dead from being complete lardos. Not a peep from the Nazis on that one.


A-fvcking-men! :clap2:

Obesity has moved to the top of the list as cause of death in the US, but mention putting a tax on fast foods, soda, and other crap, and see how far you get.


----------



## JustOneMoreStick (Sep 21, 2009)

Their trying to do it here its a good thing I quit smoking a couple of years ago.


----------



## jbrown287 (Aug 18, 2010)

Syner said:


> I thought cotinine had a half-life of about 16 hours? Shouldn't it be gone from your system in less than a couple days?
> 
> Sorry to break it to you. But just because we don't inhale doesn't mean cigars aren't just as "bad" as cigarettes. Cigar and pipe tobacco produces a more alkaline smoke so it is absorbed in our mouths much better/easier than cigarette smoke (and because there is so much more nicotine and tar in a typical cigar, we're worse off smoking one cigar than one cigarette - keep in mind that most cigarette smokers don't stop at 1 or 2 smokes a day though).


Do you work for a insurance company???? Maybe your the one talking to the state:mrgreen:


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

jbrown287 said:


> Do you work for a insurance company???? Maybe your the one talking to the state:mrgreen:


LMAO Jeff. Nothing like giving uneducated ammo to the anti smoking nazi brigade.



> Sorry to break it to you. But just because we don't inhale doesn't mean cigars aren't just as "bad" as cigarettes.


Show me one study where a CIGAR smoker has died from a lung cancer directly attributed to cigar smoking! The vast majority of attributable cancers connected with smoking are lung cancers from cigarette smoking. I challenge you to show me the studies to back up your statement Syner.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

I've been researching this and reading about it for the last few years...this is getting so much worse and it's not going to get any better folks. Companies want 'viable' healthy workers so they don't have to pay more expenses for health care. For every worker that uses their healthcare it drives costs up for the employer and todays healthcare people are living longer...which translates to more healthcare costs and companies are looking at this seriously. In the year 2050 they say 1 in 3 will have diabetes and since they have medications to keep patients living longer that translates to more care. It's all about the cost of using your health benefits...they figure 'sick' people or people who live 'unhealthy' lives are going to end up costing them more in the long run for health care. It's ironic that we can keep people living longer but their lives will be under a health carrier more so to save money companies WILL be and ARE hiring people based on their health. This is going to get uglier because they have already gotten a foothold in how they can hire and fire employees based on their health...they are changing how people are hired based on their credit scores. Glad I retired when I did as this whole thing is crazy.


----------



## Tritones (Jun 23, 2010)

Back when I was debating whether or not to give cigar-smoking a whirl, I did a little research into health risks. Interestingly, the cancer and lung folks both have no "conclusive" data on the health risks associated with smoking less than 5 a week, not inhaled. This almost certainly means that "preliminary" and "inconclusive" data show no health, risks. Otherwise, they'd be pouring money into studies to prove the risks.


----------



## Batista30 (Sep 13, 2010)

Tritones said:


> Back when I was debating whether or not to give cigar-smoking a whirl, I did a little research into health risks. Interestingly, the cancer and lung folks both have no "conclusive" data on the health risks associated with smoking less than 5 a week, not inhaled. This almost certainly means that "preliminary" and "inconclusive" data show no health, risks. Otherwise, they'd be pouring money into studies to prove the risks.


I have also research extensively online and couldn't find any data associating 1 cigar a day not inhaled is as bad as smoking multiple cigarettes on a daily basis. One would think that since cigars have been smoked for decades upon decades, "scientists or researchers" would have conclusive data by now if they could prove dramatic health risks. Only thing I'll assume currently is that cigars might raise the risks of certain cancers but it might be negligible.


----------



## Broz (Oct 16, 2010)

Batista30 said:


> One would think that since cigars have been smoked for decades upon decades, "scientists or researchers" would have conclusive data by now if they could prove dramatic health risks.


Just because studies haven't confirmed a causal health risk from cigars doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And tobacco studies haven't been performed until well into the latter half of the 20th century, case studies which require 30-50 years of data before drawing conclusions.

Cigars produce the same sort of incomplete combustion products as cigarettes, with the exception of less or none of the many additives American cigarettes have. This includes the whole assortment of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) produced from multiple fermentation processes and various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from incomplete combustion. Instead of filling your alveoli with smoke residue, you bombard your oral cells with the same chemicals. There is widespread cell damage that your body does manage to heal, but in the rare instances your anti-tumor mechanisms fail and you get cancer. I guess you can argue that the effect isn't as widespread as cigarettes, but you're still exposed to many of the same chemicals which do cause cancer.


----------



## Frinkiac7 (Dec 12, 2008)

Warning: smoking can be bad for your health.
Warning: drinking soda can make you fat and give you diabetes.
Warning: driving with the windows down behind a big truck in traffic and breathing fumes can give you lung cancer.
Warning: eating foods that have been heated in a plastic container can give you cancer.

Etc. etc. 

EVERYTHING is bad for you. 

This isn't about health & wellness on the insurance companies part, it's about sticking smokers with an extra surcharge because no one will complain...smoking is an acceptable target. Now, 75% of the population being overweight or obese? Well you can't just start attacking them, even though they are ACTUALLY expensive, because it's "mean." And most of these people will see a long-term decline in their health due to being overweight, which actually means years and years of treatments, co-pays, and medicines to be bought. Keeping people sick = $$$$$$. It's about as far from "promoting health" as possible. Follow the greenbacks.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Isn't this really about inherent risk=Probability of loss arising out of circumstances or existing in an environment? Everyone is different and when exposed to environmental or man made toxins not everyone is going to come up with the same exact symtoms or disease. We can continue to delve into research data,,,we can expound the known vs the unknown and come up with different answers everyday. The 'known' is that tobacco has been proven to be a danger to your health...sugar is a danger to your health...living in certain large cities are a danger to your health...we can list hundreds if not thousands of things that are dangerous to our health. What it comes down to is what is acceptable risk and/or quality of life to the individual who indulges? I grow weary of those who want to preach second hand smoke kills when they live next door to companies that spew hundreds of millions of carcinogens into the air and don't say a word. Or the clown at a restaurant/bar who is drinking enough liquor in one evening to cause cirrhosis of the liver in a small dog...hypocrites. I have more respect for the person who practices in action rather than what they say but not to the point where they become militant about it.

Back on topic of the surcharge for health insurance....here is some more lunacy for everyone to see what's coming:
*According to Roll Call's "Heard on the Hill" column, Indiana Congressman Steve Buyer has suggested that people who:

engage in the act (specifically, the kind that takes place sans protection) should have to pony up.

Under the plan Buyer posited, those who engage in risky behavior, like smoking, not exercising and (ding, ding!) having unprotected sex, should have to pay a premium for their health care.*

It will progress from this to "associated risk" of any type because once it gets a foothold they can add to the list. It's not just companies that are doing this... states are now involved in writing up changes.


----------



## jbrown287 (Aug 18, 2010)

My employer only offers 3 plans. 1 is $600.00 a month the other 2 are high deductable plans. Meaning you are out either $3,000 or $5,000 before they pay anything. They give you a little to start and so much a pay check with the last 2. The worst part is it doesn't matte rif you chain smoke cigarettes or smoke 1 cigar a week or month, you still have to pay the same thing. Looks like there would be a defferentiation between the 2. It has just gotten crazy everywhere.


----------



## wsamsky (Jun 1, 2010)

Frinkiac7 said:


> I would just say no. Random mouth swabs at work? I'd go home and milk welfare for all it was worth rather than subject myself to that...effing pathetic. If Big Brother really wants to make themselves all powerful, then they can get the nanny total-control state they want and start paying me to sit on my ass, then. F--- 'em.
> 
> But cooling down for a second, I'd still say no. If they tested you and you popped hot, you could just plead false positive, lawyer up, maybe get lucky and off with a warning...anything. It's all part of a fear campaign that some fat nerdlinger actuary dreamt up to try and save money. The contemptible little weasels who devise these ideas are all going to be strung up on the outskirts of town sooner or later...no use knuckling under to them.
> 
> ...


Amen!!

Unfortuantly i used to be the pinnacle of health but now ive put on like 30 pounds and hardly ever exercise... Maybe ill end up as one of those one in three.


----------



## Broz (Oct 16, 2010)

Frinkiac7 said:


> Warning: smoking can be bad for your health.
> Warning: drinking soda can make you fat and give you diabetes.
> Warning: driving with the windows down behind a big truck in traffic and breathing fumes can give you lung cancer.
> Warning: eating foods that have been heated in a plastic container can give you cancer.
> ...


Yes, if you view everything in black & white, then everything is bad for you. But you fail to account for the severity of cigar-smoking-related diseases vs, say, drinking from plastic containers. Smoking is targeted because it is preventable.

I don't agree with a surcharge, but that's what you get when companies/healthcare providers need to turn a profit: they go after risky clients with the smoking surcharge to make up for windfall/pad profits.

And for those who are asked to pay a surcharge: consider yourselves lucky that you even have health insurance.


----------



## Rock31 (Sep 30, 2010)

My companies health insurance doesn't have a surcharge but they will credit you $25 a month if you sign up as a non-smoker.


----------



## Rock31 (Sep 30, 2010)

My companies health insurance doesn't have a surcharge but they will credit you $25 a month if you sign up as a non-smoker.


----------



## jbrown287 (Aug 18, 2010)

So why don't compaines(I know some do) go after obese people or people with pre-existing conditions(I know they can't)? These people are at a higher risk of problems than most smokers. It's not right that smoking is singled out more times than not. There are other problems that affect more people than smoking and conditions that kill more people than smoking.

Pull for the team you play for


----------



## Broz (Oct 16, 2010)

jbrown287 said:


> So why don't compaines(I know some do) go after obese people or people with pre-existing conditions(I know they can't)? These people are at a higher risk of problems than most smokers. It's not right that smoking is singled out more times than not. There are other problems that affect more people than smoking and conditions that kill more people than smoking.
> 
> Pull for the team you play for


But smoking is not a pre-existing condition. It's something that is arguably preventable. With our health system guided by profits, why shouldn't they perform surcharges on smoking?


----------



## 1029henry (Jan 18, 2010)

Wait until the gooberment totally controls health care. We ain't seen nothing yet. How soon until the federales search our houses without warrants to make sure we aren't smoking, having unprotected sex, eating tasty foods, enjoying the type of movies we like, worshipping the God we choose, etc., etc., etc.,. It all leads down the same road.


----------



## Broz (Oct 16, 2010)

1029henry said:


> Wait until the gooberment totally controls health care. We ain't seen nothing yet. How soon until the federales search our houses without warrants to make sure we aren't smoking, having unprotected sex, eating tasty foods, enjoying the type of movies we like, worshipping the God we choose, etc., etc., etc.,. It all leads down the same road.


So, you would place more trust in a company trying to turn a profit on you over the government? The government has nothing to do with this smokers' surcharge, it's just another exploit the insurance industry can use.


----------



## ckay (May 10, 2010)

The great Health Insurance Reform...

Sonic Blue and Beryllium Mustangs...got larger pics? Looks good from here1


----------



## asmartbull (Aug 16, 2009)

Broz said:


> So, you would place more trust in a company trying to turn a profit on you over the government? The government has nothing to do with this smokers' surcharge, it's just another exploit the insurance industry can use.


 This is the direct result of the Obama healtcare bill. Ins companies are battling to stay in business given the new rules. It is widely believed that
this is a backdorr way to have employers drop their coverage, pay the penalty/tax, and place employess on a public option. It you think things are bad now, wait till single payer......


----------



## Batista30 (Sep 13, 2010)

The fact of the matter is whether the Government(nyc taxing sodas) or LARGE PRIVATE ENTITIES(health insurance charging higher premiums) pursue extra "revenue", the citizens of the united states are paying for it. Having higher premiums for smokers and not for those who are obese shows some degree of bias. But, percentage wise, obesity is more of an issue than smokers and yet, there would be an uproar if their premiums went up. Obviously, smoking is our choice but there are a few(or many) obese people that refuse to change their lifestyle or blame genetics or whatever else so they may avert blame. As having close relatives and friends who are obese, I do hear their reasoning which I then narrow down to their lack of exercise and choice of foods. They make choices and we make choices and treat them equally...that's all.


----------



## Syner (Mar 7, 2010)

Tashaz said:


> LMAO Jeff. Nothing like giving uneducated ammo to the anti smoking nazi brigade.
> 
> Show me one study where a CIGAR smoker has died from a lung cancer directly attributed to cigar smoking! The vast majority of attributable cancers connected with smoking are lung cancers from cigarette smoking. I challenge you to show me the studies to back up your statement Syner.


I hope you are not saying I'm uneducated?

When did I say anything about lung cancer? If you read my post, you'd see that cigar smoke is alkaline; it is absorbed in the mouth. Cigar and pipe smokers are more likely to get mouth cancer.
In no way am I supporting the companies doing this. I smoke cigars and I think it's extremely low of company to use these tactics. But simple science is simple science, and it's ignorant to believe that smoking tobacco is not harmful to a person's health.

What statement would you like the papers to back-up? That smoking tobacco is not good for one's health? I'll find some if you really want, but sometimes common sense says a lot more than scientific studies.


----------



## gahdzila (Apr 29, 2010)

What a mess. Nothing like this at my employer (yet?), but I'd probably just pay the $20 a month or whatever and not risk the consequences.

I agree with the obesity arguments. Obesity is at least as preventable as smoking, and arguably even more unhealthy than smoking. Does anyone really think a 175 pound man who eats right and exercises and smokes a couple of cigars a week is a bigger health risk than a 300 pound sedentary non-smoker?!? PLEASE!!! I wish I could remember the source, but you'll just have to trust me - I read somewhere that the average life expectancy for someone over 500 pounds is under 40!


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

Syner said:


> I hope you are not saying I'm uneducated?
> 
> When did I say anything about lung cancer? If you read my post, you'd see that cigar smoke is alkaline; it is absorbed in the mouth. Cigar and pipe smokers are more likely to get mouth cancer.
> In no way am I supporting the companies doing this. I smoke cigars and I think it's extremely low of company to use these tactics. But simple science is simple science, and it's ignorant to believe that smoking tobacco is not harmful to a person's health.
> ...


I no where questioned your education. The point is that it is supremely unfair to compare an occasional cigar smoker with a normal cigarette smoker. Common sense dictates that they are very, very different cases. I have spent many an hour in Oncology wards and Chemo therapy suites. The people I have met with oral cancers were all cigarette smokers, not cigar smokers. I am in no way suggesting that there is no risk attached to our chosen hobby, just the methodology used to attack it.


----------



## Darth-Raven (Oct 22, 2010)

This has been an interesting thread to read. First, I have socialized medicine through the Army and they have a _huge_ push in the Army concerning tobacco cessation. Also, I think I am more likely to develop long term heath issues due to the exposure to burn pits, and other environmental hazards from my deployments (I could be wrong, but it seems likely)

As for obesity, I fully agree that it is as preventable as most other choice related health issues for the majority of people. Some have endocrinal issues that make obesity a larger problem, but having dealt with a lot of Soldiers on the Weight Control Program I have only seen 1 in 50 that had such an issue. Far more people are too sedentary and eat poor diets. I did see on CNN that one state had decided to do something about obesity, but rather than spend money on gym equipment as first proposed, they decided to give the most obese people liposuction instead. WTF?!? Help a minority rather than the majority?

One last thought:

Life is a sexually transmitted condition with a 100% mortality rate. Why worry?
:cowboyic9:


----------



## marked (Jul 29, 2010)

Rock31 said:


> My companies health insurance doesn't have a surcharge but they will credit you $25 a month if you sign up as a non-smoker.


That $25 IS the surcharge. They just marketed it to you in reverse. It sounds much nicer for them to say they're going to give you a credit if you don't vs. they're charging you more if you do.


----------



## marked (Jul 29, 2010)

asmartbull said:


> This is the direct result of the Obama healtcare bill. Ins companies are battling to stay in business given the new rules. It is widely believed that
> this is a backdorr way to have employers drop their coverage, pay the penalty/tax, and place employess on a public option. It you think things are bad now, wait till single payer......


I have to say that I _completely _disagree with this comment.

Of what benefit is it to a private insurance/health care corporation to price themselves out of business? What you're saying doesn't make sense.


----------



## marked (Jul 29, 2010)

Darth-Raven said:


> Some have endocrinal issues that make obesity a larger problem,


I don't buy that excuse, either. Hypothyroidism can be controlled very well with medication.


----------



## Rock31 (Sep 30, 2010)

marked said:


> That $25 IS the surcharge. They just marketed it to you in reverse. It sounds much nicer for them to say they're going to give you a credit if you don't vs. they're charging you more if you do.


Yea I guess you're right, never thought about it till now since I just had my first taste of tobacco this summer.


----------



## Darth-Raven (Oct 22, 2010)

marked said:


> I don't buy that excuse, either. Hypothyroidism can be controlled very well with medication.


I agree. I was pointing out that the majority of obesity issues stem from poor life choices such as diet, activity level, etc.

I am thankful that the Army has at least instilled me with a certain level of physical activity. I am still trying to lose more weight/body fat, but am a lot better off than I probably would be if I had not been in the military.:usa2:
:cowboyic9:


----------



## gahdzila (Apr 29, 2010)

IDK...I'm sure there are certain metabolic processes that make it more difficult to maintain a healthy weight, but there is NOTHING that makes it impossible. Hypothyroidism and "low metabolism" has become a huge cop-out.

It's simple arithmetic. Calories in, calories out. Anyone who says otherwise is either kidding themselves, or making excuses.


----------



## Frinkiac7 (Dec 12, 2008)

Darth-Raven said:


> This has been an interesting thread to read. First, I have socialized medicine through the Army and they have a _huge_ push in the Army concerning tobacco cessation.


How does Tricare treat tobacco use? Do you get a surcharge or mouth swab?


----------



## Syner (Mar 7, 2010)

Tashaz said:


> I no where questioned your education. The point is that it is supremely unfair to compare an occasional cigar smoker with a normal cigarette smoker. Common sense dictates that they are very, very different cases. I have spent many an hour in Oncology wards and Chemo therapy suites. The people I have met with oral cancers were all cigarette smokers, not cigar smokers. I am in no way suggesting that there is no risk attached to our chosen hobby, just the methodology used to attack it.


Ok, that was a complete misunderstanding on my part.

I completely agree that it's extremely unfair to compare the two. We have all tried to explain the difference between cigar and cigarette smoking, but too many people believe there isn't a difference simply for the fact that they are both smokeable tobacco products.

Most do-gooders, knee-jerks, and pink-lungs want to "help" us, and unfortunately they will use unfair methods to try attain their goals. And like you, I'm completely against their method of attack.


----------



## Darth-Raven (Oct 22, 2010)

Frinkiac7 said:


> How does Tricare treat tobacco use? Do you get a surcharge or mouth swab?


Define "treat." As far as I am aware, they assist in providing cessation aids. All medical is covered for me. Surcharge & mouth swab I had not heard about until reading this forum. It actually alarms me.

On another point:

What if someone is into extreme sports? They exercise regularly, but could have higher injury rates. Do they get a surcharge too?

:cowboyic9:


----------



## Broz (Oct 16, 2010)

asmartbull said:


> This is the direct result of the Obama healtcare bill. Ins companies are battling to stay in business given the new rules. It is widely believed that
> this is a backdorr way to have employers drop their coverage, pay the penalty/tax, and place employess on a public option. It you think things are bad now, wait till single payer......


You honestly believe this wouldn't happen if the healthcare "reforms" didn't pass? With an economy like this insurance companies would do it regardless of whatever the government dictates, unless it was made illegal.

Glad to hear someone mention Tricare. Let's see, how does that rhetoric go? Evil government socialized obamacare there to dictate morality (lol) :spider: :bawling:


----------



## asmartbull (Aug 16, 2009)

Broz said:


> You honestly believe this wouldn't happen if the healthcare "reforms" didn't pass? With an economy like this insurance companies would do it regardless of whatever the government dictates, unless it was made illegal.
> 
> Glad to hear someone mention Tricare. Let's see, how does that rhetoric go? Evil government socialized obamacare there to dictate morality (lol) :spider: :bawling:


 We would not have this economy if it wasn't for this president .
Fact is, if there were more Ins companies able to business in more states, there would be more competition for the same $$$$$. The problem is that employers have litte choice, and most time premiums dictate the result. The healthcare bill does nothing to lower cost, and predicibly, if any company has increased cost/overhead, it is passed to it customers.

This trend will grow as government grows.

sorry for the vent.....but this is an example that elections have consequences ...."live free or die", NH State moto


----------



## TXsmoker (Sep 6, 2010)

asmartbull said:


> We would not have this economy if it wasn't for this president .


Thats correct. Bush would have run whats left of our economy into the ground, to the point that we couldnt recover. Then we could all become Chinese like the republicans want us to.



asmartbull said:


> Fact is, if there were more Ins companies able to business in more states, there would be more competition for the same $$$$$. The problem is that employers have litte choice, and most time premiums dictate the result. The healthcare bill does nothing to lower cost, and predicibly, if any company has increased cost/overhead, it is passed to it customers.


Yea, remember 10-12 years ago when everywhere had awsome healthcare? Then the republicans got in office, stopped regulating big buisness and the insurance co's started rasing rates, offering less service, and charging more, as well as giving themselves huge raises just to screw us harder. Yea, Obama and the Dems cant fix 8 years of the republicans screwing up in a year or 2. It takes time. When Clinton left office, I had free, awsome healthcare provided by my employeer. 2 years later, I paid almost 250 a month (just for me, no wife/kids) and had big co-pays, and they even charged me more for perscriptions than they cost without insurance. But, the CEO's are buddies with the crooked republican party, so they can do whatever they want.

Are you really so brainwashed that you think you would rather have someone in charge of your healthcare that only cares about making a buck over having someone who gets set pay no matter how much money healthcare makes or loses, as his or her job is to keep people alive? Once government healthcare gets going, if you dont want it, you want something else, you can get it. And, because no one will pay their exuberant rates, they would either have to become competitive, or go under. Right now, these companies are mad that their cash cow is going away, and they have more laws resticting them, so they are going to screw everyone over as long as they can, then they will clean up their acts and settle in. Unless those crooked republicans get in office and throw out healthcare, then we are screwed.


----------



## Strick (Aug 21, 2008)

"It's my Life and I'll do what I want" "It's my mind and I'll Think what I want"


----------



## asmartbull (Aug 16, 2009)

Sorry,
Never a idea to introduce politics on board like this, but there is
relationship between the "cost" of this pass-time and government,
weather it is taxes on product, business, and now healthcare.
Personal liberties are being eroded (sp), as the size of government
is being increased. To this I blame progressives
Everything has a cost...now we are seeing that tobacco is going to cost us more.....What's the cost of freedom....


----------



## TXsmoker (Sep 6, 2010)

asmartbull said:


> Sorry,
> Never a idea to introduce politics on board like this, but there is
> relationship between the "cost" of this pass-time and government,
> weather it is taxes on product, business, and now healthcare.
> ...


The single most invasive new piece of government was brought to us by the republicans. Remember Homeland Security, and all the privacy invasion lawsuits?

And, why does a CEO of a healthcare corporation who has an income of almost a billion bucks a year give himself almost 5 times that in bonus's, and times it with company profit reports (looks like they dont make as much because he is stealing it) so that he can claim losses, and ask those making less than him to take pay cuts? Thats who is currently running our healthcare.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

TXsmoker said:


> The single most invasive new piece of government was brought to us by the republicans. Remember Homeland Security, and all the privacy invasion lawsuits?
> 
> And, why does a CEO of a healthcare corporation who has an income of almost a billion bucks a year give himself almost 5 times that in bonus's, and times it with company profit reports (looks like they dont make as much because he is stealing it) so that he can claim losses, and ask those making less than him to take pay cuts? Thats who is currently running our healthcare.


*Not wanting to stir the pot but politics in any form ( Dems/Repubs) share a common pattern of government...corruption on both sides. I don't trust both sides because they don't represent the people...they represent the highest bidder and our representatives do not vote for what we want...they vote their own "conscience" as they will tell you. They were never voted in to vote what they want but we 'let them' because of our own apathy to vote them out. Wanna know who to blame? US...it's US because we vote them in. Whine and piss and moan all you want to but at the end of the day WE vote them in and let them swindle us with their BS lies and their own agendas. I don't blame Bush and I don't blame Obama...I blame the very people who vote these swindlers into office. We have a real habitual habit of 'blaming' everybody else for the things that go wrong when it begins with us first. *

*Want to change things? Then get off our lazy butts and vote for those who will do what WE want...until that happens you have one finger pointing at your intended target and 4 other fingers pointing right back at yourself...fix that first and then you can fix the other things that are wrong.*


----------



## asmartbull (Aug 16, 2009)

My last post on this

In a past life I was an actuary for a life/security company.
Part of my job to assess the cost of legislation to a company.
Simply stated, most insurance companies are stock companies.
They are owend by you and I usually without us even knowing it.
Publically owed insurance companies have been opperating on a 3%
profit margin. I know this. I worked the numbers.
As laws pass, the cost of that law is passed to customers. That is how most PUBLICALLY owned companies operate. In our situation, it is politically easier to pass the cost to smokers, not fat people.
The cost of this legislation to "publically"owned insurance companies is huge, 

You need to remember, the reason the goverment has large death taxes, is because it is easier to tax the dead...they don't complain as much..

at some point I believe private health insurance will be out of business If you think health insurance is expensive now,,,,wait wait till it is free


----------



## GentlemanJester (Feb 28, 2010)

TXsmoker said:


> Thats correct. Bush would have run whats left of our economy into the ground, to the point that we couldnt recover. Then we could all become Chinese like the republicans want us to.
> 
> Yea, remember 10-12 years ago when everywhere had awsome healthcare? Then the republicans got in office, stopped regulating big buisness and the insurance co's started rasing rates, offering less service, and charging more, as well as giving themselves huge raises just to screw us harder. Yea, Obama and the Dems cant fix 8 years of the republicans screwing up in a year or 2. It takes time. When Clinton left office, I had free, awsome healthcare provided by my employeer. 2 years later, I paid almost 250 a month (just for me, no wife/kids) and had big co-pays, and they even charged me more for perscriptions than they cost without insurance. But, the CEO's are buddies with the crooked republican party, so they can do whatever they want.
> 
> Are you really so brainwashed that you think you would rather have someone in charge of your healthcare that only cares about making a buck over having someone who gets set pay no matter how much money healthcare makes or loses, as his or her job is to keep people alive? Once government healthcare gets going, if you dont want it, you want something else, you can get it. And, because no one will pay their exuberant rates, they would either have to become competitive, or go under. Right now, these companies are mad that their cash cow is going away, and they have more laws resticting them, so they are going to screw everyone over as long as they can, then they will clean up their acts and settle in. Unless those crooked republicans get in office and throw out healthcare, then we are screwed.


You realize in all the time you're talking about how great things were... I.E. under Bill Clinton... The Republicans controlled both Houses? (With the exception of the first two years).

Gotta love a Democrats ability to see what they want though. 

Next he'll probably claim that Clinton left a surplus...


----------



## TXsmoker (Sep 6, 2010)

asmartbull said:


> My last post on this
> 
> In a past life I was an actuary for a life/security company.
> Part of my job to assess the cost of legislation to a company.
> ...


They are not owned by you and I, they are owned by stockholders. Those with large shares have a say, those with few, have no say. Ownership doesnt matter because there are CEO's who are just out to make themselves a buck. And like I stated in my previous post, they do work the numbers and overpay their friends to look like they arent making as much. Simple practice that is used all the time, but shouldnt be a part of our healthcare.

It may be easier to pass on fee's to smokers, but if it was really HEALTHcare, they would be more concerned with our Health, instead of cost. Again, a profit driven industry that shouldnt be run that way.


----------



## GentlemanJester (Feb 28, 2010)

^Say it with me... Capitalism!


----------



## TXsmoker (Sep 6, 2010)

GentlemanJester said:


> You realize in all the time you're talking about how great things were... I.E. under Bill Clinton... The Republicans controlled both Houses? (With the exception of the first two years).
> 
> Gotta love a Democrats ability to see what they want though.
> 
> Next he'll probably claim that Clinton left a surplus...


Back then, republicans worked with the other side because they wanted our govenment to work. Now, its either their way or the highway. Really, has there ever been a Pres that has tried to be as bi-partisan as Obama? My main problem with him is that he wasted time trying to work with the republicans. All the republicans have done is personaly slander him. They intintionaly make up stuff (like him not being born in the US, like him being muslim, that he would pull troops out of the middle east as soon as he hit office, that he was going the re-up the Clinton gun ban, the list goes on) and never fess up to their lies, or give credit where its due. They dont care about our country, just making off with all the cash they can. That and their favorite Fox cash cow is paid off with terrorist money. Just that proven fact makes all republicans traitors, and terrorist supporters. When is Obama going to sprout some balls and and call them on it? Or do we have to wait for Hillary to get in office. I do believe she has the teste's to do something more.

For being republican run, Clinton pushed a lot of stuff through. Maybe it was Hillary while Bill was testing the interns, but it worked a lot better than it does now. Now its all about who wins, not how it helps our country.


----------



## Batista30 (Sep 13, 2010)

Cigary said:


> *Not wanting to stir the pot but politics in any form ( Dems/Repubs) share a common pattern of government...corruption on both sides. I don't trust both sides because they don't represent the people...they represent the highest bidder and our representatives do not vote for what we want...they vote their own "conscience" as they will tell you. They were never voted in to vote what they want but we 'let them' because of our own apathy to vote them out. Wanna know who to blame? US...it's US because we vote them in. Whine and piss and moan all you want to but at the end of the day WE vote them in and let them swindle us with their BS lies and their own agendas. I don't blame Bush and I don't blame Obama...I blame the very people who vote these swindlers into office. We have a real habitual habit of 'blaming' everybody else for the things that go wrong when it begins with us first. *
> 
> *Want to change things? Then get off our lazy butts and vote for those who will do what WE want...until that happens you have one finger pointing at your intended target and 4 other fingers pointing right back at yourself...fix that first and then you can fix the other things that are wrong.*


This. I signed up on Puff.com because people respected each other's opinions. This topic was created with the original intention of simply alerting the rest of us that he was paying additional charges for his insurance.:beerchug: Anyone up for a beer?


----------



## TXsmoker (Sep 6, 2010)

GentlemanJester said:


> ^Say it with me... Capitalism!


Exactly. Republican= capitalist/NAZI


----------



## GentlemanJester (Feb 28, 2010)

TXsmoker said:


> Back then, republicans worked with the other side because they wanted our govenment to work. Now, its either their way or the highway. Really, has there ever been a Pres that has tried to be as bi-partisan as Obama? My main problem with him is that he wasted time trying to work with the republicans. All the republicans have done is personaly slander him. They intintionaly make up stuff (like him not being born in the US, like him being muslim, that he would pull troops out of the middle east as soon as he hit office, that he was going the re-up the Clinton gun ban, the list goes on) and never fess up to their lies, or give credit where its due. They dont care about our country, just making off with all the cash they can. That and their favorite Fox cash cow is paid off with terrorist money. Just that proven fact makes all republicans traitors, and terrorist supporters. When is Obama going to sprout some balls and and call them on it? Or do we have to wait for Hillary to get in office. I do believe she has the teste's to do something more.
> 
> For being republican run, Clinton pushed a lot of stuff through. Maybe it was Hillary while Bill was testing the interns, but it worked a lot better than it does now. Now its all about who wins, not how it helps our country.


Wow... With that argument (and a total lack of anything nearing correct) you just lost all credence. You sound as bad as any Right Wing crazy who claims Obama is on a path to turn this country into a Muslim nation. Just goes to show you the left has em' too. Obama hasn't done anything to be Bi-partisan, he claimed he would and he hasn't done jack. Mostly because he's had control of the houses, so he just ignored the Republicans, time and time again. Now he's gonna reap that at the mid-term elections.



TXsmoker said:


> Exactly. Republican= capitalist/NAZI


Democrats=Socialist/Hippie  ???

Serioulsy I'm done, you just showed your true colors in that post.


----------



## TXsmoker (Sep 6, 2010)

GentlemanJester said:


> Wow... With that argument (and a total lack of anything nearing correct) you just lost all credence. You sound as bad as any Right Wing crazy who claims Obama is on a path to turn this country into a Muslim nation. Just goes to show you the left has em' too. Obama hasn't done anything to be Bi-partisan, he claimed he would and he hasn't done jack. Mostly because he's had control of the houses, so he just ignored the Republicans, time and time again. Now he's gonna reap that at the mid-term elections.
> 
> Democrats=Socialist/Hippie  ???
> 
> Serioulsy I'm done, you just showed your true colors in that post.


Obama hasnt done anything bi-partisan? He held up the healthcare bill trying to allow the repubs to make their changes, then when he did force it through, he left most of the republican screw ups in the bill. When he first got into office, he gave money away like the republicans said he had too. He should have fought that, but no, he tried to work with them and all he has gotten is a kick in the butt. The Dems wanted him to re-up the gun ban, but he didnt. And all the republicans can do is say he is taking our guns away even when he does the opposite.

As for the republican=nazi comment, I was using Glen Becks reasoning. He calls all non-republicans Nazi's, and yet uses the same tactics to gain followers as the Nazi party/Adolf Hitler did. As long as republicans back someone like him, they are responsible for his veiws. I just use his veiws against them. Personaly, I dont really think dems are much better, just that they seem to better represent the people. Republicans keep using religion as a tool to recruit voters. We are supposed to have a seperation of Church and State that should disqualify these people from running for office. Dems do go a little too far, wanting to control what we eat, but I seriously doubt that they could make anything like that stick. The reason that I cant get behind the republicans is the total lack of morals they have. Sure, they try to cater to the church crowd, but they dont seem to think those morals apply to them. Just their peons.

Personaly, Im with Thomas Jefferson. I think our politicians are entirely too crooked, and that they should ALL be removed from office, and take what they own, over and above the national standard, then start over with new people. From the tax bracket that most Americans fall under. No party system, no electoral college, no more of the stupid, outdated stuff that doesnt apply anymore. But thats just me...


----------



## Broz (Oct 16, 2010)

GentlemanJester said:


> ^Say it with me... Capitalism!


Capitalism gave the smoker's surcharges, so yall better stop complaining about it.


----------



## Chris Rex (Aug 12, 2010)

Batista30 said:


> This. I signed up on Puff.com because people respected each other's opinions. This topic was created with the original intention of simply alerting the rest of us that he was paying additional charges for his insurance.:beerchug: Anyone up for a beer?


Amen.

I NEVER understood people who discuss politics.

All it ever does is piss people off, get people aggravated, get people angry at each other, and in the end they each walk away with the same opinion they had to begin with. Is it REALLY IMPORTANT to prove that you are 'right'? You're not gonna change anyone's mind, nor are they gonna change yours.

So why bother? Seriously.

Try this: Keep your shitty opinion to yourself. Let your neighbor have his shitty opinion . Talk about something else. Watch your blood pressure drop.


----------



## Hermit (Aug 5, 2008)

TXsmoker said:


> Exactly. Republican= capitalist/NAZI


*Profound stupidity like this earns a spot in my ignore file. *


----------



## bpegler (Mar 30, 2006)

Years ago when this was Club Stogie there were a lot of contentious threads and it interfered with the cigar discussion. Generally things are better now. I hope the mods shut this down.
As to the OP I had an honest talk with a friend in HR after which I became an official non smoker. I still am...


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

Batista30 said:


> This. I signed up on Puff.com because people respected each other's opinions. This topic was created with the original intention of simply alerting the rest of us that he was paying additional charges for his insurance.:beerchug: Anyone up for a beer?


Absolutely! We'll kick back, relax, enjoy a good smoke & watch the politiking for amusement. Seriously guys, knock it off. Political discussions are not allowed on this board, this thread is an example of why.:anim_soapbox::focus:


----------



## 1029henry (Jan 18, 2010)

opcorn: :lock1:


----------



## Darth-Raven (Oct 22, 2010)

asmartbull said:


> at some point I believe private health insurance will be out of business If you think health insurance is expensive now,,,,wait wait till it is free


Um... I deal with government medical already... it ain't all it's cracked up to be. For sure.

:cb


----------



## gahdzila (Apr 29, 2010)




----------



## Broz (Oct 16, 2010)

1029henry said:


> opcorn: :lock1:


This from someone who was more than content derailing the thread with political mumbo jumbo.


----------



## Batista30 (Sep 13, 2010)

Broz said:


> This from someone who was more than content derailing the thread with political mumbo jumbo.


Relax. And let go.:dizzy:


----------



## ghe-cl (Apr 9, 2005)

I realize I run the risk of getting a great deal of crap for posting this, but I just can't resist. Aren't many of the people complaining about private companies instituting their own rules about smoking the same ones who complain when government institutes smoking bans because they believe private companies should be able to institute their own rules?


----------



## Frinkiac7 (Dec 12, 2008)

For my part, I believe that people should be free to smoke, period. Whoever is trampling on that, be it smoking-banners, insurance companies, or anyone else, is the enemy.


----------



## AZlooker (Sep 8, 2009)

ckay said:


> The great Health Insurance Reform...
> 
> Sonic Blue and Beryllium Mustangs...got larger pics? Looks good from here1


Atlantic Blue and Beryllium Saleen's. I can email you a couple if you like.


----------



## AZlooker (Sep 8, 2009)

Wow! Truly amazing how far off topic this went! Originally I was looking for comment on whether anyone else had seen this at their work and comment on what options might be out there. I too had a chat with one of my friends who used to be in hr and he said to "quit" smoking. Since I first posted this topic a couple of things were discovered at work and some wiggle room may have inadvertently been let out. I will let you folks know how it works out. Thanks for all the comments.


----------



## oldforge (Apr 30, 2008)

How about looking at this issue from a different angle.

Your employer could have handled this in a more positive way.

How about: "We value our employees. We want to keep them. Therefore this year we will be absorbing x dollars in additional health care costs. We will not be invading your privacy with questions about your private life. We will not be conducting intrusive tests. Because that is the kind of company we are."

If your company Prez dosen't make that speech then you know you are working for dirtbags--and it is time to quietly work on your resume. I know the economy sucks but you should be looking anyway. Employers who treat their employees like dirt deserve to lose the good ones.

(end of rant)


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

oldforge said:


> How about looking at this issue from a different angle.
> 
> Your employer could have handled this in a more positive way.
> 
> ...


Very, VERY nicely said!


----------



## Batista30 (Sep 13, 2010)

oldforge said:


> How about looking at this issue from a different angle.
> 
> Your employer could have handled this in a more positive way.
> 
> ...


This is an ideal type of company to work for. I do agree with the first half of your part.

However, I don't necessarily believe the company if full of dirtbags if he doesn't give that speech. Healthcare costs have gone up tremendously in the past ten years and many companies are on the brink of layoffs/bankruptcy. While we look at it and say why should we pay $500 more a year in surcharges, a heavy smoker could according to statistics costs a company up to $10k a year. So I also see it from their perspective. We also need to realize smoking, whether it be cigar or cigarette is frowned upon regardless of one cigar or two packs a day.


----------



## LibertyToad (Jul 27, 2008)

AZlooker said:


> Hello All, today I was informed that I will be paying a $20 per paycheck health insurance surcharge because I smoke a couple of cigars a month. According to my HR department, I either smoke or I don't, it does not matter how much.


FWIW. I've told my doc on multiple occasions that I smoke a couple of cigars a week and he just shrugs and says that the risk is so very low it "doesn't count as smoking". Sounds like your company doesn't have the facts on cigars. Sure, there is a risk, but at a couple of cigars a month, your risk is probably near to zero.

I don't condone lying, but in this case, I'd lie and keep it to myself. Their policy is unreasonable and infringes on your rights, so ignore it. Just my humble opinion....


----------



## LibertyToad (Jul 27, 2008)

Frinkiac7 said:


> I would just say no. Random mouth swabs at work? I'd go home and milk welfare for all it was worth rather than subject myself to that...effing pathetic. If Big Brother really wants to make themselves all powerful, then they can get the nanny total-control state they want and start paying me to sit on my ass, then. F--- 'em.


Hear, hear--we need more people with your attitude that will not put up with this dung. We've become a nation of wussies who give up our rights like they're candy. No body has any testicles anymore....


----------



## LibertyToad (Jul 27, 2008)

Broz said:


> So, you would place more trust in a company trying to turn a profit on you over the government? The government has nothing to do with this smokers' surcharge, it's just another exploit the insurance industry can use.


I know I would. I can change companies but it's a lot harder to change countries. Now that the government has declared health care a "right" and will be controlling access to that "right", they control us. When my doc asks me if I smoke, I'll say "no."


----------



## LibertyToad (Jul 27, 2008)

TXsmoker said:


> Thats correct. Bush would have run whats left of our economy into the ground, to the point that we couldnt recover. Then we could all become Chinese like the republicans want us to.


Actually the Democrats have held the congress for what? 4+ years. The Executive branch doesn't control the economy, that would be the Legislative branch. Gov 101. A lot of people don't understand this--most of them probably also believe, incorrectly, that we are a Democracy.

I wasn't a big fan of Bush, but this socialism stuff is much worse....


----------



## Brinson (Oct 28, 2007)

Actually, most economic decisions are made by cabinet members and positions appointed by the president...

Just sayin...

Also, I had never heard of these things before this thread. Never heard of a company even asking if you smoke. Mine never did, nor did my last job.


----------



## Rock31 (Sep 30, 2010)

2011 benefits just came in and there is now a $70 per month surcharge for smokers.

And it defaults to "yes I'm a smoker" that pisses me off more than anything.


----------



## Batista30 (Sep 13, 2010)

Rock31 said:


> 2011 benefits just came in and there is now a $70 per month surcharge for smokers.
> 
> And it defaults to "yes I'm a smoker" that pisses me off more than anything.


I guess you'll want to send your remaining cigars to me and check off "i'm a non smoker"......cheers :bolt:


----------



## Rock31 (Sep 30, 2010)

I'm a collector not a smoker.


----------



## Tritones (Jun 23, 2010)

I have a bad feeling - open enrollment is coming up and the meetings are mandatory this year, which means changes to the insurance.

I've never been to one of those mandatory meetings where the subject was more coverage for less money. Always it's about trying to spin the fact that I'll get to pay more per paycheck for the privilege of paying more per doctior visit, prescription, etc.

I will not be surprised if a similar surcharge comes up this year.

Haven't decided what I'll do in that case.


----------



## Tritones (Jun 23, 2010)

LibertyToad said:


> No body has any testicles anymore....


And new health care programs don't cover replacements ...


----------



## thunderdan11 (Nov 15, 2010)

I do not smoke either, and actually had to stop for two months prior to my tests..........


----------

